OPS - Vantage Point

Coupon-mad

What I am saying is, your defence draft said, as a fact, that the machine wasn't working. 

The fact is, though, you don't know for sure because it's years ago, so it is more in your favour to say just that and that you would never not pay (if you have used that car park regularly and always paid, say so as well).  You can add that you put the C to strict proof that the machine was working and the contract was not frustrated as a result of their faulty system.    If this was before Vantage Point added 'JustPark' payment by phone as an option (which I've seen from another case, is there and is fairly recent) then say so.  

fishsoup

Thank you for all your help with this.

I've amended my defence below. Any further feedback would be appreciated. 

a) The Defendant tried to purchase a ticket from the machine with cash, but the machine was not working so a ticket could not be purchased. The Defendant did not have their mobile phone with them to be able to purchase an electronic ticket. The Defendant was attending a children’s party at a nearby location. The Defendant has used this car park previously and has always been able to purchase a ticket from the machine and they would not deliberately avoid paying for a ticket. 

b) The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the machine was working on that day and the contract was therefore not executed due to their faulty machine.

Fruitcake

Don't use sub paragraphs. Just use whole paragraph numbers. 

(a) and (b) above should all be part of your defence paragraph 3.

I would also use the legal phrase, "frustration of contract" or similar wording instead of "executed ...".

Coupon-mad

You are still saying that the machine wasn't working even though you told us you don't know that?  What you have said there is no defence - this is not how to do it, IMHO.  I've tried to make this clear to you, not to assume it was a day when the machine wasn't working if you don't know that.  

You could state instead that you regularly use that car park and always pay by cash, and can only assume there was a system malfunction that day, and you put the C to strict proof that their machine was working properly, taking payments by cash and fully recording the VRMs correctly that day.  At no point has the C provided any evidence from the machine log, which in similar cases seen, other parking firms routinely provide a list from the machine(s) with other VRMs partly redacted.  The D puts the C to strict proof of this record from all machines (top and bottom storey) that day.

fishsoup

Coupon-mad said:

You are still saying that the machine wasn't working even though you told us you don't know that?  What you have said there is no defence - this is not how to do it, IMHO.  I've tried to make this clear to you, not to assume it was a day when the machine wasn't working if you don't know that.  

You could state instead that you regularly use that car park and always pay by cash, and can only assume there was a system malfunction that day, and you put the C to strict proof that their machine was working properly, taking payments by cash and fully recording the VRMs correctly that day.  At no point has the C provided any evidence from the machine log, which in similar cases seen, other parking firms routinely provide a list from the machine(s) with other VRMs partly redacted.  The D puts the C to strict proof of this record from all machines (top and bottom storey) that day.

Thank you Coupon-mad, much appreciated.
My only other concern is whether to mention that there was an option to purchase a ticket via the app but I did not have my phone with me, should I leave that bit out?

Coupon-mad

Nope. 

Save that for the WS stage, and hope to see their WS first, to see what they are saying, then counter it.  Your position at the moment is you are a regular user, you always pay by cash and can only conclude the system was not working and you want to see their evidence.  Then your WS picks up on that. 

 At this stage you can't guess that this was a day when this/that might have happened.

fishsoup

Coupon-mad said:

Nope. 

Save that for the WS stage, and hope to see their WS first, to see what they are saying, then counter it.  Your position at the moment is you are a regular user, you always pay by cash and can only conclude the system was not working and you want to see their evidence.  Then your WS picks up on that. 

 At this stage you can't guess that this was a day when this/that might have happened.

Thank you - I think I'm ready to submit my defence based on your reply above. Is there anything further I could/should add?

The Defendant has regularly used the Vantage Point car park and always paid by cash, and can only assume there was a system malfunction that day and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that their machine was working properly, taking payments by cash and fully recording the VRMs correctly that day. At no point has the Claimant provided any evidence from the machine log, which in similar cases seen, other parking firms routinely provide a list from the machine(s) with other VRMs partly redacted. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of this record from all machines (top and bottom storey) that day.

Coupon-mad

Remove one of the repeated 'that day' (my fault, it's there three times!).

fishsoup

I have received a notice of allocation to the small courts for Sep 21, it states I need to prepare evidence and witness statement two weeks before the case.

@Coupon-mad you suggested seeing their witness statement but I can't see how I will be able to access that before the two week deadline. Based on that should I use the standard template as advised in the newbies thread.

Thanks

Fruitcake

Prepare your WS on the assumption you will not get to see the claimant's WS in time. But, hold off sending yours to as near as the deadline as you dare in the hope you will get to see theirs first.